Much more interesting would be actually passing the radiation, ESD, vibration and thermal cycling tests - with flight electronics and other components. Good luck

Well, their CEO was involved in Phoenix lander program. And their senior technical staff has pretty relevant experience in that regard. So maybe they deserve a little credit.

I said - good luck, and i never questioned anyones credentials on the team. If they actually get into a flight hardware config, i'll be really impressed. Considering that they are camping at Moffett field here and have a close support of Ames, i think its likely they will get there eventually. But as always, it will take more time and money than anyone in the team thinks.

Your "less than $100 million" is a nice goalpost but also completely unsubstantiated, i think.

My issue with them is their press releases - the hyperbole and self promotion is at obnoxious levels.

A tweet :"Mini-trailer to our "Behind the Scenes" MX-1 unveiling video under production: <link snipped> " - with a million attached hashtags.Really ? A mini-trailer to the trailer of unveiling of an engineering mockup ?

A tweet :"Mini-trailer to our "Behind the Scenes" MX-1 unveiling video under production: <link snipped> " - with a million attached hashtags.Really ? A mini-trailer to the trailer of unveiling of an engineering mockup ?

Yep, which is great because they actually bothered to interview all the incredible people that they invited to the unveiling.

Logged

Jeff Bezos has billions to spend on rockets and can go at whatever pace he likes! Wow! What pace is he going at? Well... have you heard of Zeno's paradox?

I said - good luck, and i never questioned anyones credentials on the team. If they actually get into a flight hardware config, i'll be really impressed. Considering that they are camping at Moffett field here and have a close support of Ames, i think its likely they will get there eventually. But as always, it will take more time and money than anyone in the team thinks.

Your "less than $100 million" is a nice goalpost but also completely unsubstantiated, i think.

This was my ballpark estimate. But the presentation that you included in the follow-up post puts minimum sized mission to $75 million (launch included). Larger payloads with dedicated LV are sized up to $175 mil. Compare this to LRO (505 mil), LCROSS (79mil), LADEE (263), GRAIL (496). Or even better, compare it to the lander missions: Curiosity (2.3 billion), Spirit/Opportunity (820) or most appropriate - Pathfinder (280 mil). Note that these costs also do not include the launch vehicle. Of course, these missions have widely different requirements and capabilities, but still we are talking about order of magnitude change.

My issue with them is their press releases - the hyperbole and self promotion is at obnoxious levels.

A tweet :"Mini-trailer to our "Behind the Scenes" MX-1 unveiling video under production: <link snipped> " - with a million attached hashtags.Really ? A mini-trailer to the trailer of unveiling of an engineering mockup ?

The same logic you can apply to SpaceX or Virgin Galactic or Planetary Resources. They are start-ups that need to fight for their business with as much publicity and marketing as they can. Of course they make big and sometimes unsubstantiated claims. Unfortunately, that often goes hand to hand with a disruption of established business players.

They're not too forthcoming with numbers, but some BOE calculations show that if they can bring their inert mass in at 40 kg, they could achieve a gross mass of 300 kg, which would let them fly on a proposed growth version of an ESPA ring. (The current ESPA payload limit is 180 kg, way too small for a 60 kg landed lunar payload.)

Having been down the secondary payload road myself a few times, the real problem is getting a ride. You have to find a primary payload which is willing to accept you on their flight. This typically means they want a vanishly small chance that you could do anything to screw up their delivery mission. This generally means no pressurized gases, no chemical energy (i.e., propellants), and if you're lucky only three interlocks to prevent you from powering up before the primary payload is long gone. (Some rides demand you launch with depleted batteries and recharge passively post-separation.) Your typical GTO primary is a communications satellite company with ~$200M+ in the bird and looking at ~50M+/month from transponder revenues - they are not likely to say,"Sure!" when you ask to put 200 kg of rocket propellants (liquids, with unmodeled slosh modes for the LV coupled loads analyses) Onboard and tag along. You're adding a significant increase in the chance of losing their bird, and they're not going to accept that. Moon Express' best chance is to find another similar (almost certainly NASA-funded) payload heading to the moon and tag along, like LCROSS. (Although, for Discovery-class missions led by the PI, I have trouble imagining any of them would accept this as a secondary, either...)

Having been down the secondary payload road myself a few times, the real problem is getting a ride. You have to find a primary payload which is willing to accept you on their flight...

First, there are secondary payload restrictions and requirements, but actually finding a GTO bound launch with the correct timing and trajectory to get to TLI is a difficult excercise in itself. I just recently read this, which looks at this in perspective of Ariane 5 GTO launches mostly:

Manoeuvres before lunar injection greatly depend on the Keplerian elements of theinitial orbit.The launching inclination should ideally be within the moon inclination interval. If it isthe case, a transfer is almost manoeuvre-free, or has a small mid-course manoeuvre,if the spacecraft is launched with optimal conditions of:• argument of perigee and right ascension of ascending node, for GTO transfers• right ascension of ascending node only for LEO transfersSome rare GTO Ariane 5 launches provides such conditions.None-optimal conditions would require expensive manoeuvring which may doublethe trajectory total Δv cost.

They're not too forthcoming with numbers, but some BOE calculations show that if they can bring their inert mass in at 40 kg, they could achieve a gross mass of 300 kg, which would let them fly on a proposed growth version of an ESPA ring. (The current ESPA payload limit is 180 kg, way too small for a 60 kg landed lunar payload.)

Having been down the secondary payload road myself a few times, the real problem is getting a ride. You have to find a primary payload which is willing to accept you on their flight. This typically means they want a vanishly small chance that you could do anything to screw up their delivery mission. This generally means no pressurized gases, no chemical energy (i.e., propellants), and if you're lucky only three interlocks to prevent you from powering up before the primary payload is long gone. (Some rides demand you launch with depleted batteries and recharge passively post-separation.) Your typical GTO primary is a communications satellite company with ~$200M+ in the bird and looking at ~50M+/month from transponder revenues - they are not likely to say,"Sure!" when you ask to put 200 kg of rocket propellants (liquids, with unmodeled slosh modes for the LV coupled loads analyses) Onboard and tag along. You're adding a significant increase in the chance of losing their bird, and they're not going to accept that. Moon Express' best chance is to find another similar (almost certainly NASA-funded) payload heading to the moon and tag along, like LCROSS. (Although, for Discovery-class missions led by the PI, I have trouble imagining any of them would accept this as a secondary, either...)

Could this be the first re-flight of a recovered F9S1, plus the stage recovered a second time?

Would need SpaceX to expend an upper stage, but they get flight experience on a recovered S1, and get it back a second time.

During November and December 2014, Moon Express successfully conducted its lander test vehicle hot fires and initial flight tests at the Shuttle Landing Facility at Kennedy Space Center, with the support of NASA's Lunar Cargo Transportation and Landing by Soft Touchdown (CATALYST) initiative.

Through an increasingly complex series of tests following vehicle integration, the Moon Express "MTV-1X" proved out its fundamental guidance, navigation and control systems and achieved controlled flight profiles. A highlights video was published by Moon Express following the flight tests.

The Moon Express team shared facilities and coordinated range operations with the NASA Morpheus lander test vehicle, which also had a successful flight test series.

"NASA has been a remarkably helpful and proactive partner to help us achieve our goals," said Moon Express co-founder and CEO, Bob Richards. "The Lunar CATALYST team supporting our partnership is outstanding and our direct Space Act Agreement relationships with Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California, Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, and Kennedy are providing us access to additional key support and resources to help get us to the moon."

Moon Express is one of NASA's three private sector partners competitively selected to spur commercial cargo transportation capabilities to the surface of the moon.

"We congratulate Moon Express on the successful flight tests of their innovative lunar lander test vehicle," said Jason Adam, NASA's Moon Express partner manager under Lunar CATALYST. "Moon Express is the first private company to build and operate a lander test vehicle at the Kennedy Space Center, and we look forward to working with them as they develop new U.S. capabilities to land on the moon."

Thanks for the link. A billionaire in the mix? He's either the sponsor/bankroller, CEO or both.That's a good sign. The fact that they tested some actual large-scale hardware is another good sign.NASA's role? Unknown, but welcome. The big problem is? What booster, and booster service, are they attempting to use? That may be the showstopper, like it has for so many such enterprises over the years/decades.

Thanks for the link. A billionaire in the mix? He's either the sponsor/bankroller, CEO or both.That's a good sign. The fact that they tested some actual large-scale hardware is another good sign.NASA's role? Unknown, but welcome. The big problem is? What booster, and booster service, are they attempting to use? That may be the showstopper, like it has for so many such enterprises over the years/decades.

The billionaire is Naveen Jain, who started Infospace and Intelius. There's more about him in a previous CNBC story.

Presentation from Bob Richards CEO. There is a good slide at 5 minutes showing the MX1 lander on top of MX2 lander. The MX2 will deliver MX1 to surface, the MX1 will be used to deliver the "sample return" to orbit. This combination of vehicles is called MX3.MoonExpress reckons these samples could be worth $1B (private collectors?).